User talk:Peter coxhead

Welcome!

Hello Peter coxhead, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Botanic(al) garden

As requested, I've left a reply (in support) at Talk:Botanic garden. Best wishes, Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Darwin

Concluded versus realised. Please, in the interests of accurate and scientific reporting, revisit the Charles Darwin discussion page. Amandajm (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've just re ordered the intro, with some rewriting. We need a consensus of "scientific" minds, rather than a consensus of people who just drop by and say "Well, I think this....!"

I've left an analysis of the process on the discussion page. If you would like to comment, I would appreciate it. Amandajm (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Botanic Garden

Hi Peter, I have been working on a rewrite of the Botanical garden article here and would value your feedback. I have warned editors of what is afoot so that there can be discussion before anything happens to the current page which I have incorporated as much as possible into the update. Granitethighs 03:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at User_talk:Granitethighs#Botanic_garden. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Peter - very useful. I am aware of the tendency to "synthesise" unduly - but as you say it is difficult not to. Having said that please do point out those parts that are particularly suspect and I will do my best to correct them. On the political front I also take your point. I have mentioned "genetic piracy" but there are undoubtedly a truckload of other colonial injustices. I see no reason why they should not be mentioned - botanic gardens themselves tend to be rather Eurocentric institutions - not always in the nicest of senses. I am hoping to finish the Botanic gardens article in the next few days but the History of Botany will take longer: it is very "unfinished" ... could you give me a week or two to tidy it up a bit - then its all yours. The idea of "linking" references is great - I have not seen that before (or seen how it works anyway). Thanks again. Granitethighs 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a huge improvement Peter, thanks for all that work - I notice you have spruced up the references in other ways too which has made it much more "professional" - great editing. Now I see how it is done I should, in future, be able to do it myself. I removed the "odd" reference as it doubled another anyway. Also thanks for dealing with the Hortus Third duplication. I reckon it ranks more than a "C" now dont you? Granitethighs 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth more than a C now! Great piece of work! As for the references, one point is that it's easier with the {{Citation}} template (which I use since I prefer the 'comma' style to the 'full stop' style). If you use the {{Cite XXX}} templates not only do you have to choose which XXX to use (e.g. book, journal, encyclopedia, etc.) but you must include "|ref=harv" to get the anchors which make the linking work. I only used the {{Cite XXX}} templates to match more accurately the format you'd already used. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I take a purely puritanical stance with {{cite}}. If it comes out wrong, it is the template's problem not ours. So I always quote with cite and then let hem fix it. Anyone who complains it it not MOS this or MOS that, send them to cite.

Best wishess Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm a computer scientist, so I feel part of "hem" when it comes to things like templates! Actually, it wasn't my point that there's anything wrong with cite. {{Cite}} and {{Citation}} produce different styles: the former by default uses full stops between items, the latter by default uses commas between items. Neither is right or wrong; I happen to prefer commas. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter I saw your changes and held off until you were done. Fantastic improvement. I want to make a few minor subs meself, are you don now? Then I think it should go for GA review. Great job by Granitethighs. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm likely to be tied up with family Christmas stuff for a while now, so don't wait for me! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bloxam

I am not a biologist either (you might look at some articles on notable biologists to get some precendent). By me it sounds like a table or list of his species would be quite appropriate for his bio. Especially put at the end to not interrupt the flow of the narrative. Presumably you know about the List of birds of Hawaii and Endemic birds of Hawaii. And depending on how much work you are signing up for, putting links from each of these species articles back to his bio might also be appropriate, if they are notable enough to have sources, etc.

And as for the the "class=" ratings, the next level up from "stub" is "start", but I ranked it a couple steps above that since you have a good number of reputable sources. And it is probably fine to have a source that is not cited in the text; not need to comment out, perhaps put into a "Further reading" section.

You might even be in time for a Template talk:Did you know‎ nomination.

(later) I took the liberty of nominating, since it is probably night time where you are: Template talk:Did you know‎#Andrew Bloxam if you did not want this, you can remove it, or suggest alternate hooks, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

History of botany

Peter, fantastic, you've done it again - that seems a huge amount of work to me, you must have a system. Thanks a million. I am gradually working through this article again ... copyediting this one is a different kettle of fish from "Botanic gardens": it needs more thought and organisation but I will plod on for another week then remove the tag - needless to say, do whatever you think is needed to improve it. Granitethighs 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have developed some 'tools' for this style of referencing. If/when they are complete, I'll put them online. The problem is the old 90-10 one: 90% of references are covered by common cases; the other 10% are more tricky. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll look forward to the time when you reveal your referencing secrets. I have now removed the tag from the History of botany article although I am still tinkering a bit. Would appreciate your criticaleye thanks if you have time. Granitethighs 19:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter - I've had a look at your referencing notes and will try to use them in future as they do such a good job. Also ,thanks for tidying up my mess in "History of botany", I will try and leave that article alone now for a while. Granitethighs 00:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Bloxam

On December 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Bloxam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Meg Wolff

An article that you have been involved in editing, Meg Wolff, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Wolff. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I've made this nomination based on your comments at the article talk page. — æk^Talk 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested: Fascicle v. Book

In light of this edit, and ones made subsequent to it, I'd appreciate any comment you may have at Talk:Book#Fascicle. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

JIDF

Hi, the JIDF article is currently semi-protected for a month and I'm trying to push through some updates during this time. I know that you have previously expressed some views on the article. I am currently workign through it section by section. Would you care to comment on my proposals as they appear, or even provide some of your own.?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scilla lochiae

A tag has been placed on Scilla lochiae, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, this was a slip on my part. Correct re-direction now restored. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles

Don't worry about that Peter!

I really like to help other users.

So, I am glad if you want to help me with my english ;) Flakinho (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

List of restriction enzyme cutting sites

Yeah, I really wanted to say that: "An organism often has several different enzymes". Thank you for your help! I agree with all the changes. Flakinho (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tool

It should be a great help to all editors. I will check it out and give feedback a.s.a.p. Granitethighs 11:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom Biology

Wow! Fantastic work you have done on this article. Bravo.